Yup (to the 1st question, that is), I'll be posting it tonight - I've almost got it ready for posting.

Only two series are finished so far - but I'm sure people would like to see how they're going.

Oops. Sorry bout the double post - tried to do the "edit" thing to add to my post, and somehow it posted twice, instead of just editing the original post.

Anyway - started typing in a new thread the other day, to post results so far, and some observations - but my computer crashed in the middle of it.

Sorry for the delay - it'll be up soon.

Well, I guess I'll pull up a chair. I read the threads but its hard to total up the whole picture just by doing that. It will be interesting to see how my brothers are doing. Go FL!!!!

I gotta say though, I really think the 200 pt games would have added to the data. The basic charge has always been that he's underpriced - 200 pts is the best place to test cheesiness.

Greetings,

Is the stench of cheese diminished by more points? Actually I think I might agree. But 300 points is as much a tourney standard as 200. Besides, there's lots of people who claim 1 Firelord isn't "borken" but 2 are, and in 300 points it's *easy* to do a double F-lord combo team.

Also, where the heck does one go for 2nd round pairings? I'm a punishment glutton, and I'm ready. NateTG and I just finished Round 1 Series 14. For those keeping track of points and whatnot Nate was even so kind as to do some final computations right at the end of the thread (shortly before my longwindedness)

Playing Nate might have convinced me to upgrade to F-lord Exp version even if just for the range, but we'll see. If nothing else I promise this, there shall be burnination...forsooth.

Regards,
Thor.

Verily, friend Thor, thou shalt soon have further opportunity for burnination. So let it be written, So shall it be done.

okey dokey gang - sorry for the delay in getting a results thread up - been a busy weekend.

it's up now at:
http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showth...threadid=48558

Well, this whole thing may have been rendered moot. Why? From ED0825:
This is purely my opinion (and it will probably surprise some, as I've been a pretty strong advocate for change), but I think this was not the best solution to the taxi'ing "problem."

What this rule change does, essentially, is give ALL flying figures one of the disadvantages of Battle Fury (cannot be carried), without the benefit of being immune to Mind Control. Every single flying fig in the game just took a hit to their usefulness - but their point values won't be changed (I'm guessing).

Now, in the case of Firelord - this is probably a good thing - but I certainly don't think EVERY flying fig was too powerful or undercosted, do you?

It's very likely that this will mean expensive flying figs will see very little to no competitive play any more - they're too expensive to be taxi's themselves, and the fact that they can't BE taxi'd means you'd be at a tactical disadvantage to play them against a team with big groundeds and taxi's.

Well, I guess many players got their wish - Cyke just became extremely more useful, while Firelord and Ultron took a nice hit. I fear that this is a step in the opposite direction, tho - that all that will be accomplished is to see a different group of figures dominate play - rather than what I would like to see happen, which is to seriously address and fix the balance issues of the game.

Oh well, perhaps I'm getting panicky :-) Guess I should wait to see the actual wording of the new rules.

In any case, I'd still like to continue our little experiment, if interest holds up - heck - I havn't been able to play a single game yet!!

BTW, my whole beef there was based on the assumption that they're saying flyers can't carry other flyers, but can still carry non-flyers.

It occurs to me, looking back over the original quote, that perhaps it was poorly worded, and meant to imply that actually, taxi'ing rules were being removed from the game altogether (by not allowing any carried figure to take an action in the same turn it was carried). If that's the case, I take back my previous statement - like I said, I guess I should wait to see what the new rules actually say :-)

Isn't it a little bit stupid to "completely" rewrite the rules of the game, over a year after it was released?

Anyway... that quote does sound like it's only flying figs that can't be taxied. that would really suck. I don't know that you'd see a complete lack of heavy fliers, though. Just a lot more of Jean Grey and Mandriod.

Actually, I kind of think that this game is desperately needing a rules rewrite, and I'm glad they've done it. The original rules were, in many cases, imprecisely written and led to vague power interactions and such. A game that has to rely on a die roll to adjudicate player disputes over the rules is, in my opinion, very poorly written (I've never played another game, ever, in 24 years of gaming, that included such a clause). The 25 page FAQ is further evidence of the ambiguity of the original rules. I think Wizkids placed too much of a premium on the "simplicity" of the rules when they were writing them, and thus sacrificed clarity.

As far as the changes to taxi'ing rules go, I'm not going to comment on this anymore until it's revealed what the actual changes ARE. It's been brought up in some of the other threads on the subject, that it actually sounds like they're concern was the double taxi tactic (taxi a flyer, who then taxi's another fare), and not taxi'ing a shooter (flyer or not) - it may be that the new rules will simply disallow a fig who's been carried from taking a move action (but may still take an attack or power action).

How many tests are left?

My opponent and I are still in the middle of game 2.

Thus far, 39 games have been completed. I've said that I don't believe we'll be able to make any valid assertions until we've got around 200 games altogether. Originally I had thought that 3 rounds of pairings (20some pairings with 3 games in each round) would give us sufficient results - but we've had a few dropouts and stalled games. Basically, we've got about 15 good pairings going right now, so at the current rate, if we can get all the players to play 4 rounds of pairings, we can still collect data on ALMOST 200 games (around 180) - I think this will still be good.

Anyway, are you tiring of being judge for this, Funky? If so, please let me know. We could change the way we're doing this a little bit. I've noticed that most of the questions people are asking you are already directly addressed in the FAQ. People will be lazy if they know they have a judge's ear, tho, and just shoot a PM to you, rather than check the FAQ. We could reduce the workload on you by ONLY PM'ing you when a question comes up that cannot be resolved by the FAQ.

Actually, I haven't been asked a question since the 2nd. And since I haven't been getting as many questions, I thought the games were winding down, which is why I asked.

As long as the players understand that I might not be able to respond as quickly in the future (we are running tests on the project I am heading at work), I am ok with continuing to judge. If the players still want me to judge, I am happy to do so.

Awesome!

Thanks again for all your work thus far - and we're glad to have you be our continuing unofficial official judge :-)